From: Hrishikesh <hri...@gm...> - 2007-10-23 23:53:03
|
On 10/23/07, Jeff Dike <jd...@ad...> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:21:03PM -0300, Hrishikesh wrote: > >> Yes, that double negative was a slipup. I did get some numbers out and > they > >> look pretty good. I ran upto 5 instances of UML simultaneously and in > the > >> tickful case, each instance adds roughly about 100 wakeups per second. > > > HZ == 100, so that makes sense. >> So > >> after 5 instances, C3 residency comes down to about 95% when all the > >> instances are simply idling. With NO_HZ applied, the change is minimal > with > >> C3 residency still approximately 98%. UML is not even among the top > three of > >> the bad-list of wakers-up :-) > > > Cool. I'm suprised that 500 wakeups/sec only brings you down < 5%. Hmm, powertop shows 500 wakeups on part of UML, but the actual number of wakeups for the processor is much lesser.. Guess there is some batching that is happening. > So, things are good, except I need to figure out the !NO_HZ busy loop. > > > > Jeff > > > > -- > > Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com Hrishi |